Exclusive report

Historic case to challenge BBC’s coverage of 9/11

ae911 billboard truth

AE911Truth Evidence Goes to Court Feb 25, 2013

On February 25, in the small town of Horsham in the United Kingdom, there will be a rare and potentially groundbreaking opportunity for the 9/11 truth movement. Three hours of detailed 9/11 evidence is to be presented and considered in a court of law where the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) will be challenged over the inaccurate and biased manner in which it has portrayed the events and evidence of 9/11.

Over the last 16 months, BBC has been challenged strongly by individuals in the UK over two documentaries that they showed in September 2011 as part of the tenth anniversary of 9/11, namely ‘9/11: Conspiracy Road Trip’ and ‘The Conspiracy Files: 9/11 Ten Years On’. Formal complaints were lodged with BBC over the inaccuracy and bias of these documentaries, which, according to 9/11 activists, was in breach of the operating requirements of BBC through their ‘Royal Charter and Agreement’ with the British public. This document requires BBC to show information that is both accurate and impartial. These complaints were supported by the US-based educational charity Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth), which submitted detailed scientific evidence to BBC to buttress the complaints. The evidence focuses in particular on the confirmed free-fall of WTC 7 and NIST’s 2008 admission of this fact. In addition, over 300 AE911Truth petition signers supported these complaints by sending letters to BBC, requesting that BBC show this evidence to the public.

As a continuation of this process with BBC, documentary film maker Tony Rooke has decided to take a personal stand on this issue. People in the United Kingdom are required to pay an annual TV licence fee which is used to fund BBC’s operations. Tony has refused to pay his TV licence fee on the basis of specific anti-terrorism legislation.

Section 15 of the UK Terrorism Act 2000, Article 3, states that it is offence to provide funds if there is a reasonable cause to suspect that those funds may be used for the purposes of terrorism. Tony’s claim is that BBC has withheld scientific evidence which demonstrates that the official versionof the events of 9/11 is not possible and that BBC has actively attempted to discredit those people attempting to bring this evidence to the public. According to Rooke, by doing this, BBC is supporting a cover-up of the true events of 9/11 and is therefore potentially supporting those terrorist elements who were involved in certain aspects of 9/11 who have not yet been identified and held to account.

Rooke has been charged with a crime for not paying his TV Licence Fee. However, he has lodged a legal challenge to this charge and has now been successful in being granted an appearance in a Magistrate’s court, where he has three hours available to present his evidence to defend himself against the charge. Tony has put together a formidable team to support him in presenting the evidence, including the following two outstanding 9/11 researchers:

Professor Niels Harrit

Professor Niels Harrit, Ph.D, led the team of scientists that discovered thermitic material in the WTC dust

Dr. Niels Harrit is a Professor of Chemistry at the University of Copenhagen and is one of the world’s leading experts on the scientific evidence that contradicts the official story of 9/11. Professor Harrit’s team of scientists in Copenhagen proved that there was nano-engineered thermitic residue, both ignited and unignited, throughout the dust of the three WTC towers. He led the team and published the peer-reviewed study in an official scientific journal. He is also an expert on the other aspects of scientific evidence indicating controlled demolition of the three towers.

Professor Harrit was interviewed for a major documentary with BBC in 2011 where BBC clearly attempted to harass and discredit him rather than look at the scientific evidence, which was devastating to the official story of the destruction of the Twin Towers. Professor Harrit’s team took the precautionary step of recording this interview, as well as the interaction before and after the interview, which clearly shows the harassment and highly inappropriate conduct by BBC

Tony Farrell

Former UK intelligence official Tony Farrell has publicly questioned the official 9/11 story, and has been granted 3 hours to present the 9/11 evidence in a UK court of law.

Tony Farrell is a former Intelligence Analyst for the South Yorkshire Police Department. He was fired in 2010 because he felt compelled by his conscience to tell the truth in his official report and state that, due to his extensive analysis of the events of 9/11 and the 7/7 London bombings, he considered that the greatest terrorist threat to the public did not come from Islamic extremists but from internal sources within the US and British establishment. He is now dedicating his life to helping to expose the evidence and he is challenging his dismissal through international court.

Other members of Rooke’s presentation team include:

Ian Henshall: Leading UK author on 9/11 and founder of the UK group ‘Re-investigate 9/11’

Ray Savage: Former counterterrorism officer who demonstrates the official 9/11 story is not true

Peter Drew: UK AE911Truth Action Group Facilitator

In addition to these presenters, there are detailed written testimonies of evidence and support from four other 9/11 researchers which will be deployed to bolster to Tony’s defence:

Richard Gage, AIA: Founder/CEO of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth
Dwain Deets: Former NASA Director of Aerospace Projects
Erik Lawyer: Founder of Firefighters for 9/11 Truth
Jake Jacobs: Veteran US airline pilot and member of Pilots for 9/11 Truth

The evidence about 9/11 that will be presented by the various individuals above has rarely, if ever, been seen in any court of law in the United Kingdom, so this court case represents a unique and valuable opportunity for the 9/11 Truth movement.

We encourage all AE911Truth supporters and petition signers in the UK to attend this court hearing – the more the better. An outpouring of support will strengthen the message that the 9/11 truth movement needs to be heard and that there needs to be a new and independent 9/11 investigation.

The date and location of the hearing are as follows:

February 25th at 10:00 am

Horsham Magistrates’ Court [Court 3]
The Law Courts 
Hurst Road 
Horsham
West Sussex
England
RH12 2ET

For further information, please contact Peter Drew, AE911Truth UK Action Group Leader, at [email protected]

bbc busted wtc building 7

Source: http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/711-historic-case-to-challenge-bbcs-911-coverage.html

20 comments

  1. Forget about AE911 people, their just smoke and mirrors. Watch Dr Judy Wood’s presentations on youtube and never look back

    • Energy directed weapons are less plausible than high grade explosives.Why, because, Dr Judy has not explained what they are or where they were or any evidences as to how they would achieve the effects observed on 9/11.

      • Right, and thermite or it’s variants explains how the building was turned to dust, no appreciable rubble remained, and the bathtub didn’t rupture. You trolls are pathetic. You should walk around with shirts that have ‘thermite’ written on them in capital letters. That way rational people like me will know to avoid coming near you. Troll, troll, my kingdom for a troll.

  2. Shane, How did the red/gray chips of thermite we see get into the dust? Any idea?

  3. Dr Judy has never denied THERMITIC MATERIAL was found in the dust. That’s the important distinction: thermitic material doesn’t mean thermite was used. It simply means the components of thermite, ie. the raw materials, which is a collection of different elements, was present in the building materials used to construct the towers, which is a pretty easily verifiable fact.

    Once again, how does thermite used to COLLAPSE the building (as the theory goes) explain the a) lack of rubble, b) buildings turned to dust, c) bathtub not ruptured

  4. d) lack of seismic data that would reflect the true weight of the buildings hitting the ground.

    The rabbit hole goes much deeper than that but that’s just some food for thought to get you started. Anyone who actually believes Steven Jones really needs to watch the cold fusion cover-up doco on youtube. And when blubberface Alex Jones (who refuses to have Judy Wood on his show) tries to occasionally sprout the micro-nuke theory, it begs the questions, where were the flashes of light associated with a nuclear detonation. Anyone who discount Judy’s work either hasn’t studied her findings or is part of the cover-up. Period

  5. As for ‘Anon” (grow the balls to actually put your name to your comment), saying Judy Wood’s theory is wrong because the weapon/s used to cause the effects seen on 9/11 are unknown within the public sphere of knowledge is like saying the universe doesn’t exist because we can’t prove how it came into existence.

  6. A favourite tactic of COINTELPRO type operations is to associate other, highly implausible, easily ridiculed & ludicrous theories with strongly supported theories in order to divide & conquer opponents & also to provide a strawman that can easily be demolished by an opponent.

    No planes & directed energy weapons are both great examples of this in my opinion.

    • Then you simply haven’t studied the evidence enough.

    • Speaking of cointelpro, what do you think Alex Jones is? (the dude who will not discuss Judy Wood remember, but loveeeeeeees talking about thermite)

      Someone please tell me how if thermite, nukes, explosives or any other kinetic device was used, how the bathtub stayed intact. I’m taking a stand against the trolls right here and now – none of you ever want to actually discuss the cold hard evidence, your arguments always peeter off into non-relevant buzzwords like space beams, ludicrous, unproven, no-planers. I’m calling you out on your tactics – address the evidence or shut up

  7. Shane,
    A good case is made at VT
    Mini-Neutron Bombs: A Major Piece of the 9/11 Puzzle
    by Don Fox, Clare Kuehn, Jeff Prager, Jim Viken and Dr. Ed Ward (with Dennis Cimino and Jim Fetzer)
    http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/10/29/mini-neutron-bombs-a-major-piece-of-the-911-puzzle/

    Perhaps nanothermite as paint or some other form was used to collapse the upper storeys with MNBs used to take down the increasingly thicker steel the debris met as it travelled down.

    I have an open mind on how the 2 towers were brought down but one thing I am convinced of, a lot of politicians and financiers knew what was going down. And where did all the gold disappear to? Surely that would be easy to trace.

    • Clotchcap, I’m familiar with Jeff Prager, I have many of his scribd ebooks saved to my computer. I believe that he genuinely believes nukes were used on 9/11, but once again he makes the error of formulating a theory first and then working backwards to prove it, cherry-picking certain pieces of evidence to prove his theory whilst omitting overs. Check out what happened to cars within the vicinty of ground zero on 9/11 – levitation, stripped paint, weird fires, smoking door handles, dematerialised glass. Nukes don’t fit that pattern. Be VERY wary of anything Jim Fetzer supports, read Andrew Johnson’s free ebook 911 Finding the Truth to see what I mean. I’m still working thru EP Heidner & Jeff’s work regarding the gold – interesting stuff

    • That’s an interesting and extensive read, the link you provided. I have perused it superficially including the comments, and will make sure to read it in depth. One caveat: there is a disappointing (almost suspicious) lack of discussion within that article and it’s comments about the bent beams – http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/hanger17/core4.jpg

  8. Check out the infamous “Spire” – thermite, nukes, whatever, doesn’t explain the physics of this:

  9. Shane, thanks for responding.
    At the end of the day, chasing down how the demolitions were accomplished serves to prove the official explanation (jet fuel dunnit) is bunkum. That, to my mind, has already been accomplished. Those that helped the Bush regime cover-up the demolitions such as the official inquiry committee need to be before an impartial court (hard to find non freemason judges anywhere, a people’s court seems the only way forward) and those that profited due to prior knowledge need to be hunted down. Cheney should be water-boarded to get the info on where the missing trillions went and why the remains of the group that was researching the whereabouts of that money was redirected after its office was demolished in 9/11.
    On technical details, I’m at the mercy of experts.
    With all that said, keeping the issue alive and in the public eye is important and your article is a part of that.

    • A non freemason judge lol, sad but sooooo very true. I’ll admit, mini-neutron and DEW each still have drawbacks; how does DEW explain the cancers (people will say “Oh the survivors just breathed in dust, of course they ended up getting cancer”, but we’re talking about really strange forms of blood cancer and what have you); conversely how does mini-neutron explain the spire, the cars, the bent and kinked beams, hurricance Erin, dust being SUCKED (not billowing) out of wtc7 earlier in the day long before the collapse -> see @ 46:25 of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufWggCESyDg If at least between yours and mine discussion we can get people to look past AE911 then we’re making progress. FUCK STEVEN JONES

  10. Hi Shane. If you didn’t read this already, I think you’ll find it interesting.

    http://aangirfan.blogspot.com/2013/02/who-did-9-11.html

    WHO DID 9 11?
    ——————————————

    These 2 vids from a while back provide details on money trail.

    Financial 9/11: Following the Money Trail Deeper Down the Rabbit Hole
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFXgnYlkqH0
    ——————————————

    9/11 Conspiracy Solved: Names, Connections, & Details Exposed!
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_fp5kaVYhk
    ——————————————

    Understanding who/what the targets were may give some insight into how the towers were demolished.

  11. While many theories can be postulated as to exactly how the towers came down, the main thing to focus on is not a variety of possibilities that can be used to divide us, but focusing on how the official story has so many holes in it.
    There is an obvious cover up and possibly the most pertinent question to ask in order to get to the truth, is Qui Bono?
    Operation Hammer is a good place to start. Like any decent detective will know. Follow the money trail and it will lead you to the guilty parties.
    Do not be divided by the obvious cointelpro tactics being used. We must be smarter than that.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>